SHETHNA, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable GD in B. S. F. from the date when vacancy was there with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed that the communication at Annex.-2 dated 6. 7. 91 may be declared illegal and the same may be quashed.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that he was selected for the post of Constable GD alongwith some other persons in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the month of June 1990 (Annex.-1 ). He was expecting appointment order but, unfortunately, he received a letter dated 6. 7. 91 (Annex.-2) stating that no post of Constable GD was available and since the petitioner had become over-age for appointment, therefore, his candidature was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the advertisement at Annex.-1 only those persons were entitled as were between the age of 18 years to 22 years. As per the advertisement the date on which he appeared before the recruitment-board on 7. 7. 90 he was not over-age, however, by letter dated 13. 7. 90 an intimation was given to stop the recruitment of candidates. But, considering the unemployment prevailing in the country, the competent authority decided to prepare a list of selected candidates with a view to call them as and when vacancies arise in future. Unfortunately, when the name of the petitioner was in the waiting-list of selected candidates he had already crossed the age of 22 years as his birth-date was 3. 1. 1969 and in the absence of vacancy he could not be appointed. It is true that as per the advertisement the petitioner was eligible to be appointed. It is also true that in the absence of clear vacancy his name was kept on the list of selected candidates. But, while remaining on the list of selected candidates he became over-age and thereby he incurred the disqualification for appointment on the post of Constable GD with the respondent B. S. F. It is well settled law that mere selection is not sufficient and if the name of the candidate is kept on the list of selected candidates that would not entitle any person to seek relief that he should be appointed to the post if otherwise he is not eligible. It may be stated that alongwith the writ petition, stay petition No. 4581/91 was also filed praying that during the pendency and final disposal of the writ petition, the respondents be directed to provisionally appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable GD which was straight away rejected on 27. 9. 93 by the learned Single Judge of this Court by observing that no case for the grant of stay was made out. If the petitioner cannot be appointed though remaining on the list of selected candidates in 1991 because he had crossed the age of 22 years then certainly this Court cannot issue any direction to the respondents as prayed in this petition to appoint him on the post of Constable GD after a lapse of nine years. We are in the year 2000; meaning thereby, the petitioner must be 31 years old and when the law requires that one cannot be appointed over 22 years then this Court cannot issue directions in favour of the petitioner today as prayed. Before parting, I must state that the learned counsel Shri Lal has submitted that my learned brother Dr. B. S. Chouhan, J. has dismissed almost identical writ petitions No. 638/90 Suresh Kumar vs. U. O. I. (1), No. 5904/91 Moll Chand Jat vs. U. O. I. (2), No. 5906/91 Mala Ram vs. U. O. I. (3) on May 5, 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has gone through the same and tried to submit that it had no application to this case. Having gone through the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. But, I would not like to go into this controversy when I am already convinced that even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. .;